Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

They had people inside the Whitehouse as advisors to the President! That's far from fringe.

I disagree that Moderate Conservatives are getting lumped in. Trump supporters are yes, though in some ways they only have themselves to blame there. Trump's Administration is highly nationalistic, it's anti-immigrant, anti-minority, misogynistic, and it's racist. Supporting such an Administration means supporting those things too. You can't support Trump and then insulate yourself from the worst bits of his Administration by saying, "Well I don't like what he's doing, but I support him to do it."

It's been an "us vs them" environment since Clinton beat Bush!

Conservatives have never gotten over losing to Clinton after Reagan got all but 2 states in 1980.

All that is happening now is that the Left is returning a portion of the crap that the Right and Far right have been dealing out in the last 20 years, and they don't like it.

The Right and Far Right want to be able to spew whatever poisons they like and offend whoever they want without getting any repercussions for it.

See Free Speech isn't actually free. It comes with responsibilities, like all Rights. In this case the responsibility to accept the backlash from whatever garbage you spilled out of your mouth.

And in California, antifa et al have made it clear that they will physically attack individuals they believe to be racists, nazi's or any perceived fellow traveler. They've also made it clear that if somebody that isn't even involved with their preferred targets gets their private property damaged during the course of their highly principled protection of freedom that's just too bad.

I don't find anything good in their party platform.

__________________"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

Yes, but as usual, completely incorrectly. In 1938 after the annexation of the Sudetenland by Nazi Germany the USSR offered Britain and France an alliance against Germany to contain the fascist threat. Britain and France refused, and still being enamoured with fascism and its potential to exterminate the anti-capitalist left in Europe, went on to sign pacts with Nazi Germany instead. After which the USSR, unable to take on Nazi Germany by itself, found itself forced to sign its own non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany.

That the USSR was "unable to take on Nazi Germany by itself" is a very poor excuse for entering into cooperation with the Nazis. "Found itself forced to" is a very poor euphemism for the 'anti-capitalist' alliance that the deluded Stalin thought he was forging with his Nazi pal Hitler.

Quote:

So let's recall the sequence of events:
1. Nazi Germany invades Czechoslovakia.
2. USSR offers Britain and France an anti-fascist alliance directed against Nazi Germany.
3. Britain and France refuse and sign pacts with Nazi Germany instead. And not even reluctantly, just as enthusiastically as they had been with Nazism and its anti-communist potential ever since it took over Germany and Italy.

Yes, of course they did! That's how bourgeois states deal with Nazis! Look at the way they're 'dealing' with Trump!

Quote:

4. The USSR reluctantly signs its own non-aggression pact with Germany because it's unable to take on Germany by itself without Britain and France.

The inability to take on Nazis by itself is another poor excuse for actually trusting your fascist enemy, "reluctantly" or not! It came back to bite him in the ***, but unfortunately not just him. 26 million Soviet citizens died because of this naïvety.

Quote:

So who are the "Fa collaborators" in this story? Obviously it's the USSR if you believe the "Anti-Stalinist" left. It is almost a defining feature of the so-called "Anti-Stalinist" left that they will happily misrepresent or even falsify the history of the USSR to please the Western liberal bourgeoisie.

Why do you think that the Anti-Stalinist left are just "Anti-Stalinist"? Stalin's collaboration with Hitler was as delusional as a ("reluctant", I guess) present-day alliance with Trump to put an end to bourgeois globalization.

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

No, they were probably just anti-dating-homicidal-Nazis, but to a homicidal Nazi that doesn't make much difference.

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Problem is Antififa is a name for radical left wing movement with a number of factions.
I can personally testify to seeing some "Anti Fascist" demonstrators acting exactly in the way described last year in Berkeley.
But keep the blinders on;all evil is one end of the political spectrum.

"Revolutionary Violence" is a core concept of some extreme leftist groups. I agree that many of those identified as Antifa do not use violence, but some do

Look I despise Neo Nazis, and agree that the attempts to blame all the violence on the Antifa groups is a desperate attempt to shift the blame, but it also impossible to deny that the militant left's hands are not completely clean.
If you could please explain how trashing a restaurant, which I saw with my own two eyes last year in Berkeley,is somehow "Fighting Fascism." let me know.

In much the same way that it is celebrating your teams victory in football of course. It is just not a big deal when it is properly motivated by sports, or pumpkins.

I think calling everyone who opposes Neo-Nazis a member of Antifa maybe a bridge too fa ....

Take one of the most violent incidents involving antifa. The train stabbings in Portland. That was classic antifa activity standing up to a alt right person harassing minorities. Yet these people despite their antifa activities are regarded as heroes and victims of the right wing guy who was only speaking basic talking points of alt right. So because he fought back in their attempt to silence and intimidate him he suddenly is the villain?

Why are armed nazis protesting outside a synagogue fine, but telling one person on a train to go back to saudi arabia not?

They were against him for being a nazi. Oh wait antifa is only when they are doing it and you don't like it, that is why silencing a nazi on a train harassing a woman is fine, but trying to silence groups of nazis is wrong.

They were against him for being a nazi. Oh wait antifa is only when they are doing it and you don't like it, that is why silencing a nazi on a train harassing a woman is fine, but trying to silence groups of nazis is wrong.

TBF, antifa represent a commitment to the political/social movement of denying nazis a place or platform in a community. The train guy (Christian?) was getting called out for hostile direct harassment of others, and the parents in the OP were protecting their daughters personal safety. Neither were part of a larger ideology. They had an immediate issue with specific individuals.

TBF, antifa represent a commitment to the political/social movement of denying nazis a place or platform in a community. The train guy (Christian?) was getting called out for hostile direct harassment of others, and the parents in the OP were protecting their daughters personal safety. Neither were part of a larger ideology. They had an immediate issue with specific individuals.

When does it become that though? You see organized nazis harassing people and then it becomes free speech, because the jews have it coming for having a synagogue? You know that they are going to be harassing people at a time and place and only if you happen to be there does dealing with the harassment become acceptable?

And why are you assuming that they are not part of antifa, just because their most famous interactions with nazis did not come as a result of such activities?

It is all rather strange and confusing, repeatedly shouting racist statements is free speech in what context and when is it harassment that we can acceptably shut down?

When does it become that though? You see organized nazis harassing people and then it becomes free speech, because the jews have it coming for having a synagogue? You know that they are going to be harassing people at a time and place and only if you happen to be there does dealing with the harassment become acceptable?

No, a social or political action over an ideal is one thing, but the OP parents and Christian's victims were only focused on one person to protect specific individuals. Antifa throw down against all neos. There is simply nothing in the reporting to suggest that the parents or train victims had any interest in anyone but the individuals they were immediately protecting.

Quote:

And why are you assuming that they are not part of antifa, just because their most famous interactions with nazis did not come as a result of such activities?

Default assumption, lacking anything else. I also assume they were not CIA operatives, and will continue to do so till evidence indicates that they are.

Quote:

It is all rather strange and confusing, repeatedly shouting racist statements is free speech in what context and when is it harassment that we can acceptably shut down?

Legally, you can shout stuff with First Amendment impunity. Train guy, though, was actively harassing and threatening specific individuals.

No, a social or political action over an ideal is one thing, but the OP parents and Christian's victims were only focused on one person to protect specific individuals. Antifa throw down against all neos. There is simply nothing in the reporting to suggest that the parents or train victims had any interest in anyone but the individuals they were immediately protecting.

By discriminating based on ideology, clearly there were the real monsters.

Quote:

Legally, you can shout stuff with First Amendment impunity. Train guy, though, was actively harassing and threatening specific individuals.

So as long as you keep the threatening to groups and not individuals you are safe and should be. If he had simply been demanding the expulsion of all muslims while on the train the people taking issue with him would be in the wrong, free speech, but telling one person to go back to saudi arabia is where it crosses the line.

Why do you think that the Anti-Stalinist left are just "Anti-Stalinist"?

Because they think it makes them look good to the liberal middle class and they're happy to misrepresent and falsify the history of the USSR to achieve that.

And of course they're not just Anti-Stalinist, they're just liberals with an empty flair of socialism around them, because even they (should) know very well that trying to postpone war with Nazi Germany (through for example the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was the only rational course of action available to the USSR under the international conditions as they were at the time. So it doesn't even have anything to do with Stalin per se, the same would be just as true irrespective of whoever happened to be leading the USSR at the time. Nice use of the Great Man Theory of History in lieu of analyzing the material conditions though, that doesn't sound liberal at all, it's just so Marxism.

But who cares about accurate historical analysis of the context and conditions which led to the events as they transpired when all that one's going for is to have liberals go "Who's a good boy?!" after joining them in stupid ahistorical so-called "Anti-Stalinist" nonsense?

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Again I get that a lot of people have this hand wringing "Where do we draw the line" fetish for social discussions but I don't really care in this case.

I don't know either. But I know if we get to the point where Nazis have a place in the popular discourse.... we went to far. Go back and draw a line somewhere.

"Nazis having a place at the table" is well past whatever "line" we should be drawing.

Too late, we elected someone who really likes nazi memes and propaganda and as such they become the official position of the executive branch. See his "sure this was nazi propaganda and never happened but it totally could"

By discriminating based on ideology, clearly there were the real monsters.

So as long as you keep the threatening to groups and not individuals you are safe and should be. If he had simply been demanding the expulsion of all muslims while on the train the people taking issue with him would be in the wrong, free speech, but telling one person to go back to saudi arabia is where it crosses the line.

What? No, we're talking about whether the actions were those of antifa, not right or wrong. The parents and Christian's victims were right, the neos in both were wrong, no question. But neither had anything to do with antifa.

What? No, we're talking about whether the actions were those of antifa, not right or wrong. The parents and Christian's victims were right, the neos in both were wrong, no question. But neither had anything to do with antifa.

The bounds all seem so weird though. Telling someone on a train to go back to saudi arabia is unacceptable, but picketing a synagogue and saying "Jews will not replace us" is protected.

How many times can someone tell someone to go back to saudi arabia before it becomes acceptable to confront them instead of trying to take their constitutional rights away?

They kind of have to because of how many nazi cops there are. Figure a baseline of what 20%? Do they really discount all the nazi cops testimony or does it come across as basic police testimony? Why shouldn't non cop nazis be able to testify?

The bounds all seem so weird though. Telling someone on a train to go back to saudi arabia is unacceptable, but picketing a synagogue and saying "Jews will not replace us" is protected.

How many times can someone tell someone to go back to saudi arabia before it becomes acceptable to confront them instead of trying to take their constitutional rights away?

I think the distinction is that directing it at an individual can be viewed as imminently menacing, as in the guy's hate is directed at you, here and now. Holding a sign is more of an abstraction, or a vocalized thought.

When groups of neos and antifa square off, both sides spew rhetoric for a while, but the groups are directing it right at one another, so that would be a case where groups are menacing other groups. I think it all has to do with how likely it is that things will get physical in short order.

I think the distinction is that directing it at an individual can be viewed as imminently menacing, as in the guy's hate is directed at you, here and now. Holding a sign is more of an abstraction, or a vocalized thought.

Nothing frightening about a synagogue surrounded by nazis? That has a very specific target, these jews instead of jews in general. Yet it is still in the vein of protected speech.

They kind of have to because of how many nazi cops there are. the law requires LEA's to investigate reports of criminal assault.

FIFY.

We have a law in San Francisco that I agree with in part that protects undocumented aliens from possible deportation when they report being victims of crime. That's a damn good thing. The part that protects convicted criminal undocumented aliens, not so much.

The press release from the attorneys representing the accused antifa protesters from the Sacramento incident in '16 spun CHP investigating the incident into the CHP working with the nazi's.

The fact is that LEO's and LEA's don't have a hell of a lot of leeway in ignoring something as publicly well documented as what went on in Sac. If the antifa want to suit up and play they fall into the exact same category as anyone else that commits criminal acts on video. That might be why they attempted to stop a camera crew from a local tv station from filming the event.

And in my opinion, any of the protestors on either side that were documented as having committed criminal acts should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

You may not want anyone to know this and I'm sure you don't care, but the CHP investigation recommend criminal charges on over 100 individuals on both sides of the incident.

The California Highway Patrol is recommending charges against 106 people after completing an investigation into a June melee on the grounds of the state Capitol.

The CHP issued a news release Wednesday announcing that it has forwarded a 2,000-page investigative report and several hours of video footage to the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. Prosecutors will consider 514 misdemeanor and 68 felony charges involving 106 people. The charges include unlawful assembly and assault with a deadly weapon.

Local prosecutes parred that down to one of the nazi's and three of the antifas.

__________________"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

We have a law in San Francisco that I agree with in part that protects undocumented aliens from possible deportation when they report being victims of crime. That's a damn good thing. The part that protects convicted criminal undocumented aliens, not so much.

The press release from the attorneys representing the accused antifa protesters from the Sacramento incident in '16 spun CHP investigating the incident into the CHP working with the nazi's.

And in other we have the cops clearly ignoring the crimes committed by the nazis right in front of them.

Take one of the most violent incidents involving antifa. The train stabbings in Portland. That was classic antifa activity standing up to a alt right person harassing minorities. Yet these people despite their antifa activities are regarded as heroes and victims of the right wing guy who was only speaking basic talking points of alt right. So because he fought back in their attempt to silence and intimidate him he suddenly is the villain?

The people on the train were not antifa, nor did they get on the train looking for someone to fight with. It's absolutely okay to interfere with one person harassing other people, but it's not okay to pick a fight with someone because you think they might harass someone.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Why are armed nazis protesting outside a synagogue fine, but telling one person on a train to go back to saudi arabia not?

Who says Nazis protesting outside a synagogue is fine? I certainly don't.

Now, after an eight month investigation, the California Highway Patrol, which has jurisdiction over the Capitol, is recommending prosecutors press 514 misdemeanor and 68 felony charges against 106 people, ranging from assault with a deadly weapon to unlawful assembly. The investigation was stymied by rally participants who attempted to disguise their identities and did not cooperate with investigators, the CHP said.

“As a result of our investigation, which included conducting hundreds of interviews and reviewing many hours of video evidence, we are asking the Sacramento County District Attorney to bring charges ranging from unlawful assembly to assault with a deadly weapon,” said CHP Captain Daniel Lamm, Commander of Capitol Protection Section, said in a released statement. “Our role is to protect free speech, but not when that speech involves violence.”

__________________"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

The bounds all seem so weird though. Telling someone on a train to go back to saudi arabia is unacceptable, but picketing a synagogue and saying "Jews will not replace us" is protected.

How many times can someone tell someone to go back to saudi arabia before it becomes acceptable to confront them instead of trying to take their constitutional rights away?

I would think that both examples are protected. Unacceptable to most, but not illegal.

As to the second paragraph, if by "confront" you mean get violent I am going to say it's never acceptable to initiate violence in that circumstance. As long as their path isn't impeded they are not physically harmed, why can't someone legally say to them, "Go back to Saudi Arabia?" I may want to throw a punch but it would be wrong.

If someone wants to protest a synagogue I'm sure they can do so legally.

Quote:

They kind of have to because of how many nazi cops there are. Figure a baseline of what 20%?

I can't agree with a single thing you've said on this page so I'll stop here.

Oh golly, nothing to say about the Poles and Finns. By the way? Hitler was a rank amateur compared to your boy Stalin when it came to genocide, in fact, Hitler could not have done it without Stalin and the USSR.

There aint’t no Genocidal maniac like a communist genocidal maniac because a communist genocidalmaniac don’t stop!

Cos in the case of Poland and Finland the commie didn't even start genocide. Stalin ruled Poland for nine years up to his death, and established a repressive regime, but he didn't commit genocide. Nobody even accuses him of genocide against defeated Finland in 1940. In the areas of Karelia he annexed, the Finnish population was given the choice of becoming Soviet citizens, or leaving, and virtually all of them took the second option.

In the matter of genocide, Hitler was by far the more consistent performer, but Hitler wasn't a commie, so what's not to like about him, eh?

Just so you don't think I'm calling you a liberal because I have no counterargument. It's just that I haven't been bored and stoned enough yet to be willing to bother with this stuff which is as laughable as that "muh Holodomor!" crap. So here goes...

Quote:

That the USSR was "unable to take on Nazi Germany by itself" is a very poor excuse for entering into cooperation with the Nazis.

On the contrary, choosing not to be destroyed by Nazi Germany is a very good excuse to pay them off until the USSR can build up its forces. If the neighbourhood bully puts a gun to your head, and you still need some time to make your own gun to take him on with, then paying him off to buy time isn't just a good plan but it's the only one you've got.

So feel free to present your own plan which you think was better, or are we to conclude that you're just sad that the USSR didn't end up getting destroyed by Nazi Germany?

Quote:

"Found itself forced to" is a very poor euphemism for the 'anti-capitalist' alliance that the deluded Stalin thought he was forging with his Nazi pal Hitler.

Right...

Look, I get how, when you're sitting with the Nazis at the negotiation table, it may seem a bit surprising to watch the Soviets go "Oh yes, we don't have to be enemies, we can be friends because we are both, like, anti-capitalist and stuff" but maybe it might make a bit more sense if you got away from that seat at the Nazi side of the negotiation table and come consider it from the perspective of the USSR. Especially if you have a basic grasp of the concept of "buying time" it might make a lot more sense.

Quote:

The inability to take on Nazis by itself is another poor excuse for actually trusting your fascist enemy, "reluctantly" or not!

I thought that in your mythology Stalin was supposed to be all paranoid of everyone and such? Is he then, like, paranoid of everyone except for Hitler, whom he trusts blindly? Uhu, yeah, makes total sense!

"Yes Mr Hitler, we trust you very very much! We both anti-capitalists! And no, those aren't reserves being secretly mobilized, those are just training exercises, we swear! And that industry moving eastwards is just normal for socialist planned economy, we swear! Hey, we pals, no?"

I know, right, how would anyone dare to lie to Herr Hitler?! It's unthinkable!

The USSR's plan and calculation was sound but for one error. And no, it's not that they suddenly liked and trusted Hitler as the so-called "Anti-Stalinist" left would have us believe. It's that they assumed that Hitler would be rational. They needed to stall until 1942 when they expected their forces to have been built up sufficiently, and had counted on him not opening a second front in the war before having finished the first. The surprise and initial disbelief achieved with Barbarossa wasn't because of (the otherwise totally paranoid, we swear!) Stalin blindly trusting Hitler but because of a military-strategic calculation.

Furthermore, they had insisted on a huge trade agreement as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and calculated that it would be a net drain for the Germans to occupy the resource-producing regions and get the resources directly rather than to keep buying them, thereby buying time before the war. The German staff did several such studies in preparation for Barbarossa itself and came to the same conclusion, showing the USSR calculation to be correct. Except of course for Hitler being irrational and ignoring all of that as well.

Anyway, as said earlier, unless this is just some tantrum because the "Anti-Stalinist" left is sad that the USSR didn't end up getting destroyed by Nazi Germany, I'm sure that you can provide an alternative plan. It's May 1939, Baltic countries at the border have signed pacts with Hitler, Britain and France have refused an anti-Nazi alliance and signed pacts with Hitler (presumably betting on fascism's anti-communist potential to try to divert his attention to the USSR), you know that Nazi Germany is going to invade Poland later that year irrespective of what you do and will have military access to the USSR border, and you need until at least 1942 to be able to withstand war with Germany. So let's hear it! What's the plan?

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

The people on the train were not antifa, nor did they get on the train looking for someone to fight with. It's absolutely okay to interfere with one person harassing other people, but it's not okay to pick a fight with someone because you think they might harass someone.

All depends on how one defines antifa. They were focused on silencing a member of the community that the antifa targets, does it only count if it is a rally and not if it is an individual?

Does the guy lose his nazi status for not being at a rally, so why should those silencing him?

Quote:

Who says Nazis protesting outside a synagogue is fine? I certainly don't.

So where are the arrests of the nazis seig Heiling as they walked past the synagogue on their way to the nazi rally? As it is not focused on an individual it seems to fit into what most here classify as acceptable civil discourse.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.